Update Tag

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that only provided fields are changed (partial update) and that the updated tag object is returned. Annotations already indicate mutability and non-destructiveness, but the description complements them with these operational details, without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, partial update behavior, and return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple update tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what can be updated, partial update semantics, and the return value. No output schema is needed since the return is explicit. It could mention error cases or permissions, but those are not essential for this straightforward operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the main updatable fields (name, color, notes) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The 'only supply fields you want to change' note is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing tag's name, color, or notes, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tag, delete_tag, and create_tag_for_workspace, making the purpose immediately apparent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage guidance by stating 'Only supply the fields you want to change,' which is essential for partial updates. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., create_tag_for_workspace) makes the appropriate use case inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.